Proposition of New Terminology Concerning Belief

[Bu🤠ns]

Concerning god, a belief may be indererminite in that we are allowed to passively hold an inarticulate "understanding" thereof (however the factical existence of G can be reduced to a binary).  "I don't know" is allowed in the context of belief.  For belief, the burden of proof is on the world.  The same is not true for faith.

Underlying the assumption is an alleged difference between belief and faith.

Faith seems to have a more active requirement on the subject instead of the object thereof.
I can have faith in something existing without knowing if it does (excluding faith itself), and, the more something presents itself as actual, the less requirement there is on faith.

Contrawise, belief relies on making assumptions upon what (for some reason) it thinks is verifiable.

Being an absolute sceptic, therefore, makes me have faith in belief 

(post will self-destruct in five minutes per wish of the recently departed)
(bc. it maintained funny)

I think you're right about faith having a more active requirement on the subject...but for maybe different reasons.

To me, faith is about trusting in the mystery.

Faith seems dependent on how much existential seriousness one has.  If you feel that the world is serious place then it shows a degree is mistrust in the mystery. The idea that the bad stuff might win or that there's bad stuff at all.  But if you look at it as a game, or a ride, then it's more playful and trusting...lighter. That even if the bad stuff wins, no matter.

As far as the rest of this thread goes...i'm clueless.

[Triple Zero]

I just tried an experiment

1. believe there is no god

2. be unsure about the existence of that thing which is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of nor has a really clear definition

3. wiggle a bit back and forth between the two, note any differences (if any)

4. now try being atheistic about the christian god and agnostic about the islamic one

5. switch, see if they noticed

6. don't believe in Zeus, be agnostic about Vishnu, don't accidentally pray do Eris

7. agnostic about All is One but atheist about Everything is indirectly related to Five

8. BANG. YOUR. HEAD!!!! (I often turn to the wonderful advice from Atari Teenage Riot in these matters)

Trying out a bunch of different things and combinations I found the only Most Sacred Holy Concept that I could be neither atheist nor agnostic about is My Penis.

So I said, fuck it.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior?

What the hell does human behavior have to do with logic?

Fuck this sophistry.

Bailing on this shit.

Sorry, that was dickish.

The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".

A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dear Nigel:

Ma'am, that was brilliant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior?

What the hell does human behavior have to do with logic?

Fuck this sophistry.

Bailing on this shit.

Sorry, that was dickish.

The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".

A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...

OK, I think I see what you're saying now, which is that Penn can be correct if everyone conforms to his fictional, binary constraints.

In other words, he's still full of shit.

[Doktor Howl]

Fact is, Penn Gillette has become a source of bad signal, which is disappointing.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior?

What the hell does human behavior have to do with logic?

Fuck this sophistry.

Bailing on this shit.

Sorry, that was dickish.

The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".

A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...

OK, I think I see what you're saying now, which is that Penn can be correct if everyone conforms to his fictional, binary constraints.

In other words, he's still full of shit.

Yup...but I can see where that shit is easy to buy.

Oh, and fuck him right in his "We're not saying Global Warming is bullshit, just that everything you've ever heard about it is."

[minuspace]

...

To me, faith is about trusting in the mystery.

Faith seems dependent on how much existential seriousness one has.  If you feel that the world is serious place then it shows a degree is mistrust in the mystery. The idea that the bad stuff might win or that there's bad stuff at all.  But if you look at it as a game, or a ride, then it's more playful and trusting...lighter...

I agree with the requirement of being lighter - Italo Calvino makes a good point of that for us in "Lezioni Americane", which I usually keep on my person . At the same time, Americans cannot always find a cultural point of reference and center of gravity that can actually benefit from moar levity.  I mean now it is also important to be circumspect because people stand to profit from manipulating others with trust in the power of levity.  There's some trope floating around on the board about being hoisted by ones own petard?